【作者】 江艺；

【导师】 张春柏；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 本论文的研究对象是译诗名家余光中的翻译思想和译诗实践。本论文着眼于剖析余光中英诗形式汉译的技巧,总结其译诗策略,彰显其诗歌翻译艺术。本论文的研究内容主要包括余光中诗歌翻译艺术的成因、内涵和实践。本论文共分七章。第一章为引言,介绍了本论文的研究对象和内容、本论文的研究意义和目标、本论文的研究方法、本论文的研究思路和框架、本论文的研究难点与创新之处、余光中作品研究以及余光中翻译研究的概况。第二章分析介绍了余光中的文学翻译思想以及个人诗学追求,以揭示余光中诗歌翻译艺术的成因。笔者提出,对话与融合是余光中诗歌翻译艺术的核心精神,而这一核心精神的形成与其文学翻译思想和个人诗学追求有关。笔者将余光中的文学翻译思想概括为以下七条:(一)翻译如婚姻,是一种两相妥协的艺术;(二)文学翻译是一门艺术,是一种“有限的创作”;(三)研究翻译就等于研究比较语言学;(四)翻译乃大道;(五)译者是学者、作家;(六)英译汉要避免恶性西化和西而不化,倡导善性西化和西而化之;(七)翻译是一件不得已的代用品,决不等于原作本身。并指出其中最核心的内容就是这里列出的第一条:翻译如婚姻,是一种两相妥协的艺术。而他其它的文学翻译思想大都是从这个核心衍生而来,或者受其制约的。我们还通过对余光中诗学探索和诗学实践的简要回顾指出,传统与现代、东方与西方之间的对话与融合,始终是余光中诗学探索的重点,而这也成为了余光中诗学实践的主要方式。我们认为,正是在“翻译是妥协”思想的直接影响下,以及在对话与融合的诗学探索和实践方式的间接影响下,余光中的诗歌翻译艺术表现出了对话与融合的核心精神。在本章中我们还特别指出,余光中对可译性问题的辨证态度,决定了“翻译即复制”不可能构成他对翻译本质的认识。通过分析我们认为,文学翻译就是解释,这构成了余光中对文学翻译本质的潜在认识。而这一认识也构成了余光中诗歌翻译艺术的根本立足点。在此基础上我们提出,余光中诗歌翻译艺术的本质就是,译者在深入了解汉英诗歌语言艺术的基础上,通过思考、磋商和妥协使汉语诗歌的语言艺术视域与英语诗歌的语言艺术视域发生融合而形成对汉诗语言艺术新传统的认识,并用浸润着汉语文化的语言符号将这一新传统固定下来,形成新文本。第三章通过对余光中诗歌翻译艺术两个环节、三个步骤的过程以及六个特征的分析和介绍,充分挖掘了余光中诗歌翻译艺术的内涵。笔者指出,从余光中英诗汉译的整个艺术过程来看,它经历了两个环节,即铺垫环节和实施环节。没有铺垫环节的准备,余光中诗歌翻译艺术的实施环节将难以为继。没有实施环节,余光中诗歌翻译艺术的铺垫环节也将徒劳无功。在铺垫环节中,余光中对汉英诗歌的语言艺术做了全面而透彻的了解,也就是形成了丰富而厚实的汉英诗歌学问,这构成了他整个诗歌翻译艺术大厦的基石。余光中诗歌翻译艺术过程的实施环节包括了信赖、对话和融合等三个步骤。在余光中诗歌翻译艺术过程的信赖步骤中,余光中不仅把译诗视为写诗的有益锻炼,而且还带着译诗有助于形成汉诗语言艺术新传统的信念进行诗歌翻译。关于余光中诗歌翻译艺术过程的对话步骤,我们指出:余光中译诗的格律、语法和修辞都以一定的格律、语法和修辞认识为背景,而这些认识又都是在对汉英两种诗歌语言艺术深入了解的基础上,通过他本人的思考,经汉英两种歌语言艺术的比较与妥协形成的,也可以说是对汉诗语言艺术新传统的认识。关于余光中诗歌翻译艺术过程的融合步骤,我们指出:余光中用浸润着汉语文化的语言符号将对话步骤所产生的汉诗语言艺术新传统固定下来,形成了中西融合、西而化之的新文本,从而实现了译诗为诗的艺术追求。融合步骤是对话步骤的落实,也是对话步骤的延续。对话步骤所产生的汉诗语言艺术新传统只是一种初步的认识,余光中经过融合步骤把这一认识落到了实处,并且在落实的过程中逐步完善了这一认识。最后我们还指出:余光中两个环节、三个步骤的诗歌翻译艺术过程对译者的汉英诗歌学问、翻译动机、艺术协调能力和艺术表达能力都提出了很高的要求。我们还以传统译诗观影响下的英诗汉译实践为参照对象,概括出了余光中诗歌翻译的六大艺术特征,即(一)在摹拟原诗形式的基础上,讲求译诗本身的形式秩序;(二)译诗的总体策略为中西融合,西而化之;(三)译诗策略呈现出动态演变的特点;(四)译诗是突出重点的活动,因此,译诗文本与原诗文本之间是一种既同且异、交叉互补的关系;(五)译诗与写诗之间彼此输血,关系尤为密切;(六)译诗充分体现了译者的主观能动性。我们指出,“神似”派译诗实践的最大缺陷就在于很难在形式上为诗歌创作输血,而“形神兼似”派译诗实践的最大缺陷就在于拘泥于原诗的形式而往往折损了译诗的诗质。余光中的译诗实践则既能在形式上为诗歌创作输血,又不过分拘泥于原诗的形式,从而维护了译诗的诗质。当然,余光中的诗歌翻译实践也有追求译诗的艺术性而不够忠实的一面。应该说是各有利弊。第四章把余光中对英诗节奏的翻译艺术实践分解为了对话与融合两个步骤加以分析。我们指出,通过汉英诗歌节奏艺术之间的对话,余光中认识到现代汉诗节奏体系包含了三种节奏,一是“恒奏”,二是现代汉诗格律体的节奏,三是现代汉诗自由体的节奏。为了突显后两种节奏与第一种节奏之间的巨大差别,我们用“变奏”来统一称呼它们。而不管是现代汉诗“变奏”的“常态”——格律体,还是现代汉诗“变奏”的“非常态”——自由体,甚至包括“恒奏”诗,余光中都强调诗的节奏起伏应该能配合诗情的起伏,节奏的特点应能反映出内容的特点。因此,同是格律体,每一首的内容有不同,其节奏就有所不同,内容上的特点越鲜明,其节奏上的特点也就越鲜明。自由体更是如此。这就是所谓的“内在神合”,也就是“从心所欲”,却“不逾矩”。在余光中看来,现代人多变的情思与生活需要充满“变奏”的现代诗格律予以表现,但如果这种格律达不到预期的功效,一切也只能是空谈。因此,他非常强调诗歌的节奏应该是有声的节奏,需要通过诵读来检验。这一认识反映在他纵谈中西诗歌音乐性的文章中,是一种融合中西的认识。在余光中的感性认识里,诗人要营造诗中之乐,就必须对文字极为敏感。我们通过译诗实例分析指出,余光中是靠着他对中国文字的敏感,包括对平仄协调、音韵呼应、音组配备、行中顿、待续句的敏感,使每一首译诗在声音效果上都能配合诗情,从而营造出有声的节奏。余光中在翻译英诗的节奏时着力反映出每一首诗的不同节奏特点,从“恒奏”到“变奏”的常态再到自由的“变奏”,从呼应式变奏到摇荡式变奏,从双轨式变奏到迟滞式变奏再到轻快式变奏,从逡巡式变奏到四重奏,从音韵呼应式变奏到立体交错式变奏等,都在他尝试翻译的范围。这使他的译诗从体式上来说诗意浓厚、节奏鲜明,每首各自不同,显得摇曳多姿。我们还特别指出了,与原诗在字数、顿数和韵式三方面都只求“大体一致”是余光中翻译英语格律诗的基本方法,它比“形神兼似”派刻意追求形似的主张更具有“弹性”,也为译诗为诗提供了更大的自由空间。第五章把余光中对英诗语法的翻译艺术实践分解为对话与融合两个步骤并加以分析。我们指出,余光中对现代汉诗以及译诗语法的认识中,很重要的一点就是,现代汉诗以及译诗的语法,最基本的要求,就是必须具备现代散文常有的美德,即合于现代散文的基本语法。而对现代散文常有的美德,余光中用“中文的常态”这一说法进行了概括。余光中的“中文常态”说包含了两方面的意思,即(一)现代中文仍应以意合语法为主;(二)现代中文也可以以适度西化的形合语法为辅。余光中分析汉语与英语表达方式差异的大量例子,证明了余光中对汉英语法隐性/显性特征的差异有着虽然感性但却深刻的认识。正因为他有这些深刻的认识,他才能够在译诗中顺利地实现从英语语法显性特征向汉语语法隐性特征的转换,保证译诗语法仍以意合语法为主。余光中对语法适度西化的认识则包含了“适度西化也有程度上的差异”这一方面的内容。相较于“化”多“西”少或者“化”少“西”多,他本人似乎最钟情于守住了分寸、“行乎中庸之道”的适度西化。余光中在译诗中一方面要求尽力维护语法的中文常态,另一方面又要求适时地反抗语法的中文常态,追求语法的高妙西化,这也就是对现代散文基本语法的“半迎半拒”。余光中不仅认可适度的西化,倡导高妙的西化,而且强调西化应该西而化之,而不是西而不化,这样才能达到真正的善性西化,这就要考验写诗者和译诗者西而化之的功力了。我们根据余光中译诗语法适度西化程度上的变化,把余光中的诗歌翻译实践划分为三个阶段:首版于1960年的《英诗译注》和首版于1961年的《美国诗选》代表了余光中译诗语法适度西化的尝试阶段,“化”少“西”多;首版于1968年的《英美现代诗选》代表了余光中译诗语法由“‘化’少‘西’多”朝“行乎中庸之道”的转向,而余光中近期的《英伦:一八一九年》等译诗则代表了余光中译诗语法“行乎中庸之道”的成熟。通过对以上三个阶段的译诗实例分析,我们指出,余光中主要是靠着去除冗字,改换措辞,巧断文气,重排语序等技巧,实现了从英语语法显性特征向汉语语法隐性特征的转换,这就保证了他的译诗语法始终以意合语法为主;同时,他的译诗语法还以形合语法为辅,主要是允许了词法的适度西化。而余光中有时也允许句法的西化,这主要是为了实现译诗语法的高妙西化。我们同样通过译诗实例分析指出,余光中译诗语法的高妙西化是为了“截长补短”,为了“尽原文形式之妙”,虽然违背了译诗语法的中文常态,却属于善性西化、西而化之,它主要表现在以下几个方面:(一)为了制造一种豪迈激昂,开阖吞吐的气势,以反映原诗作者的风格,有意保留原诗句子的长度;(二)为了修饰单调的句法,以尊重原诗作者的独特构思,有意保留原诗中的非自然语序;(三)为了以跨行句法突显重要语义,有意保留原诗的跨行方式;(四)为了反映原诗精巧的逻辑秩序以及原作者在诗歌结构上的匠心独运,有意保留原诗复杂的句法关系。总之,余光中译诗一方面不拒现代散文的基本语法,努力维护中文的常态,另一方面又适时地反抗现代散文的基本语法,追求高妙的西化,这使他的译诗从语法上来说充满张力,富于弹性。第六章把余光中对英诗修辞的翻译艺术实践分解为了对话与融合两个步骤加以分析。我们指出,在余光中看来,翻译英诗中的音韵修辞是一件很难的事。换句话说,与英诗修辞相比,音韵修辞是汉诗修辞的弱势。面对汉诗音韵修辞的总体弱势,余光中采取了积极主动的姿态。他把中国古典诗中原来作为一种文字游戏的双声叠韵,以及原来作为格律手段的脚韵,乃至于原来并不发达的同声字、同韵字、重复字修辞等,统统视为现代汉诗积极修辞的手段,归并在“重复”这一修辞格之下。这一认识显然是与英诗音韵修辞格对话的结果。余光中对“重复”修辞格的认识,无疑代表了一种汉诗修辞艺术的新传统。如果说与英诗修辞相比,音韵修辞是汉诗修辞的弱势的话,那么以象形文字为基吹暮菏?其修辞的最大优势理应在汉字修辞,对此,余光中也有深刻的体悟。除了“联边格”,余光中在他的诗论中曾提到过“神智体”、“回文”等汉字修辞格,他的创作中也有“字阵”格的尝试。另外,余光中还曾特别谈到汉语“对仗”格的优势。可以说,余光中对汉字修辞是颇为敏感的。对文言的活用也属于现代汉字特有的修辞。余光中认为今日的作家在白话文的主流中,不妨偶尔酌用一点浅近的文言作为支流,以求变化,而使文笔更有弹性。只要能够“文融于白”而不沦为“文白夹杂”,这种“文言浮雕”的做法可以是风格的正数。文言的一大特点就是精炼。而精炼本身就是中国古典诗主要的修辞方式。余光中指出,很多人以为白话取代了文言之后,文言就全废了。其实文言并未作废,而是以成语的身份留了下来,其简练工整可补白话的不足。可以看出,对文言以及四字结构的活用已经成为余光中诗歌修辞的重要方式之一。余光中对汉字修辞格以及文言活用的体认,无疑代表了一种对汉诗修辞传统的回归与更新。我们通过译诗实例分析指出,碰到含有头韵、元韵、谐音、拟声、同源词并列等辞格的英诗,译诗处于修辞上的弱势时,余光中就以意译或修辞变通的方式来译。在大多数情况下,汉英诗歌的修辞都极为相似,处于均势,因此对于在汉语中有对应修辞格的英诗修辞格,比如意象修辞格和重复修辞格,余光中主要采取了直译加润色的翻译方法。而碰到含有“对偶”辞格的英诗,译诗占有修辞上的绝对优势时,余光中就用更为对称的汉语“对仗”来译。从翻译方法上来说,属于直译加润色。当然,他译诗中的对仗在力求工整的同时也不失灵活。余光中的个别译诗还能在特定的诗境中巧妙地利用汉字的象形符号,进行无中生有的修辞添加,取得很好的修辞效果。我们还通过译诗实例分析特别指出,余光中在译诗中发挥汉字修辞的优势,最突出的表现就是结合诗境活用文言以及四字结构,这主要表现为以下三个层次:(一)一般地,文融于白,使译文更显精炼;(二)如果原文有古诗雅趣,就用文言来表现“古雅”的风格;(三)有意识地利用四字成语或四字结构来变换节奏。从翻译方法上来说,这也属于无中生有的修辞添加。我们对余光中译诗修辞的总体评价是:一方面针对汉诗音韵修辞的弱势,寻求译诗修辞的变通之道,另一方面又适时地发挥汉诗汉字修辞的优势,追求译诗修辞的优化,这使他的译诗从修辞上来说富于表现力和感染力。第七章为结语,总结了本论文研究的意义和得失,并提出了对后续研究的展望。我们提出,本论文的研究意义主要有以下四点:首先,我们对余光中诗歌翻译艺术所进行的较为系统的总结,对其成因、内涵以及实践所进行的深入细致的研究,弥补了余光中翻译研究乃至于余学研究中的薄弱环节,也为中国外诗汉译史的书写提供了一份来自台湾的素材。其次,我们所揭示的余光中译诗的主要技巧和总体策略,为其他译诗者提供了有益的借鉴。特别是我们所揭示的余光中译英语格律诗的基本方法,给当代中国译学界关于英语格律诗汉译的讨论提供了一个新的视角。第三,我们借助诠释学的相关理论,对余光中诗歌翻译艺术的成因和内涵所进行的较为深入的解析,在一定程度上推动了“译诗阐释学”的发展,促进了外诗汉译的理论研究。第四,通过本论文对余光中诗歌翻译艺术的揭示,我们看到,译诗与写诗之间的距离并不如人们想象的那么大,译诗其实就是有所限制、有所凭依的写诗。对于诗歌创作,诗歌翻译完全可以最大限度地减少其“过”而发挥其“功”。当代诗歌译者应该像余光中那样,在汉英诗歌学问、诗歌翻译动机、艺术协调能力和艺术表达能力等方面都依循高标准,努力提高译诗质量、使诗歌翻译对诗歌创作发挥更加积极的影响,这也是本论文研究给中国诗歌翻译与创作互动关系的研究所带来的有益启示。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation is a study of the theory and practice of Yu Guangzhong’s poetry translation from English into Chinese. It analyses Yu’s main skills and strategy of translation, as well as his translation artistry, which includes its cause of formation, connotation and practice.This dissertation consists of seven chapters. Chapter One "Introduction" presents the focus, purpose, methods, and structure of the dissertation. It also contains a brief survey of the studies on Yu Guangzhong’s literary works and translation works.Chapter Two introduces and analyzes Yu Guangzhong’s views on literary translation and his personal poetic pursuit, which cause the formation of his English poetry translation artistry. It is pointed out that dialogue and fusion is the core spirit of Yu’s poetry translation artistry, whose formation is closely related with his view of literary translation and his personal poetic pursuit. His view of literary translation may be summarized into the following seven points: first, literary translation is like marriage, which requires compromise from the two sides; second, literary translation is an art, a kind of restricted literary creation; third, the study of literary translation depends on that of Contrastive linguistics; fourth, literary translation should not be looked down upon; fifth, a literary translator should have great learning and writing competence; sixth, good westernization should be promoted while bad westernization should be avoided in English-Chinese translation; seventh, a literary translation work cannot be regarded as an original itself. Of the seven points, the most important one is the first, from which the other six develop. After briefly reviewing Yu Guangzhong’s poetic views and practice, we also point out that dialogue and fusion between tradition and modernity, and between East and West, is always the focus of Yu’s poetic pursuit. In conclusion, we argue that, the direct influence of his translational view of "literary translation requires a compromise from the two sides" and the indirect influence of the "dialogue and compromise" focus of his poetic pursuit have caused the formation of his English poetry translation artistry. In this chapter we also see that Yu Guangzhong adopts a dialectic attitude regarding the issue of translatability, and that he does not view translating as a mere act of reproducing. We propose that "literary translating is interpreting" should be his view on the nature of literary translation. With a profound understanding of both Chinese and English language art in poetry and through dialogue between them, Yu Guangzhong fuses his horizon of the poetic art of the Chinese language with that of English and forms a new horizon, and constructs new texts by using language that is saturated with Chinese culture.Chapter Three explores the connotation of Yu Guangzhong’s poetry translation artistry by introducing and analyzing its process, which includes two links and three steps with six features. We propose that the whole process of his poetry translation artistry can be divided into two links: the foreshadowing link and the practice link, for former being the basis of the later while the later makes the former worthwhile. In the foreshadowing link, Yu acquires a profound understanding of both Chinese and English language art in poetry, which lays a solid foundation for the whole process of his poetry translation artistry. The practice link can be further divided into three steps: the trust step, the dialogue step and the fusion step. In the trust step, Yu considers the translating of poetry a good way to practice writing poetry, as he believes that poetry translation contributes to the formation of a new horizon of Chinese language art in poetry. With regard to the dialogue step, we propose that the rhythm, grammar and rhetoric of Yu’s poetry translation works reflect his new horizon of Chinese language art in poetry. Yu Guangzhong has formed the new horizon on the basis of a profound understanding of both Chinese and English language arts in poetry and through dialogue between them. As for the compromise step, Yu constructs new texts reflecting the new horizon formed in the dialogue step, by using language saturated with the Chinese culture. The compromise step is also the continuation of the dialogue step, for it extends the new horizon. In conclusion, we point out that the whole process of Yu Guangzhong’s poetry translation requires sufficient competence in both Chinese and English poetries, a lofty translation goal, and high artistic abilities in coordination and expression.Yu Guangzhong’s poetry translation artistry shows the following six features: first, while imitating the form of the original, the translation work has its own poetic form; second, his translation strategy is the result of the fusion of the Chinese and western horizons and good westernization; third, there is always readjustment in translation strategy; fourth, the target text and the source text are two different and independent texts with certain degrees of similarity and certain overlapping parts; fifth, the activities of poetic translating and writing are closely related and mutually supplementary; six, the translation process displays the translator’s subjective initiative. In conclusion, we point out that the view of poetry translation practice as influenced by the idea of "spiritual equivalence" fails to explain the activity of writing modern Chinese poetry, and that the view of poetry translation practice as influenced by the idea of "equivalence in both form and spirit" sticks to the form of the original so much that it spoils the poetic form of the translation work, while Yu’s poetry translation practice pursues the poetic art of the translation work without paying too much attention to faithfulness to the original.Chapter Four analyzes Yu Guangzhong’s poetry translation practice from the aspect of rhythm in two steps: the dialogue step and the fusion step. We point out that Yu Guangzhong realizes that there are mainly three patterns of modern Chinese poetic rhythm, i.e. "even rhythm", "variation in modern Chinese rhythmical verse" and "variation in modern Chinese free verse". Yu stresses that the rhythm of a verse should match its content. In his view, modern people prefer "variation" to "even rhythm" when expressing their ideas in a poem, but it would be ineffective if it did not match well its content. So he stresses that a poem should be read aloud to test its rhythm, and he thinks that sensitivity to features of Chinese is the key to the creation of the rhythm. By analyzing actual examples we point out that relying on his sensitivity to features of Chinese, which includes sensitivities to tonal patterns, musical devices, rules of foot, caesura, and enjambment of Chinese poetry, Yu Guangzhong tries to make the rhythm of each of his translated poems match its content well, whether it has "even rhythm", "variation in modern Chinese rhythmical verse", or "variation in modern Chinese free verse". Thus, each of Yu’s translated poems has its own rhythmical feature.Chapter Five analyzes Yu Guangzhong’s poetry translation practice from the aspect of grammar in two steps: the dialogue step and the fusion step. We point out that in his view translation poetry should comply with the basic grammatical rules of modern Chinese prose. According to these basic rules, which are "Chinese norms" in his terms, modern Chinese should remain to be a paratactic language on the one hand, and, on the other hand, it may comply with some hypotactic rules in grammar, but only to a moderate degree. Yu proves, with ample examples, that Chinese and English have different ways of expression. In fact, these examples demonstrate the difference between the "implicit" features of Chinese grammar and the "explicit" features of English grammar. With his sensitivity to this difference he successfully transfers the "explicit" features of English grammar in the original to the "implicit" features of Chinese grammar in his poetic translation when necessary. He readjusts himself all the way to pursue appropriate westernization in grammar. While he holds that translation poetry should generally comply with the basic grammatical rules of modern Chinese, he advocates an appropriate degree of "good" westernization in grammar in poetry translation.According to the different degrees to which Yu Guangzhong’s translation poetry complies with hypotactic rules in different periods, we divide his poetry translation practice into three stages, namely, translation poetry in Translations from English Poetry with Notes (1960) and Anthology of American Poetry (1961) represent the moderate-but-biased-for-westernization stage; translation poetry in Modern English and American Poetry (1968) represent the readjustment stage; his recent translation poetry represent the appropriate westernization period. By analyzing examples at the three stages, we point out that relying on such skills as rewording, using more commas and rearranging word order he successfully transfers the "explicit" features of English grammar in the original to the "implicit" features of Chinese grammar in his translation poetry when necessary. As a result, the grammar of his translation poetry is mainly paratactic. And when Yu Guangzhong’s translation poetry complies with hypotactic rules in grammar, it should also be pointed out that such rules are mainly morphological. In most cases, when he allows westernization in syntax, he aims for especially good westernization. We point out that he displays especially good westernization in syntax mainly in the following four aspects: keeping the original length of sentences in order to reflect the poet’s writing style, keeping the original word order in order to respect the poet’s special arrangement, keeping the original enjambment in order to highlight the key words, and keeping the original complex syntax in order to keep the exquisite logic that lies in the original. In conclusion, the grammatical rules for Yu Guangzhong’s translation poetry are elastic.Chapter Six analyzes Yu Guangzhong’s poetry translation practice from the aspect of rhetoric in two steps: the dialogue step and the fusion step. We point out that in Yu’s view it is difficult to translate phonological rhetorical devices in English poetry. That is to say, Chinese poetry is not as good as English poetry in phonological rhetorical devices. In face of this situation, he tries to make full use of the originally underdeveloped phonological rhetorical devices in Chinese poetry and incorporates them into rhetorical repetition. Undoubtedly, Yu’s view about rhetorical repetition represents his new horizon of Chinese rhetorical art in poetry. Compared with English poetry, Chinese poetry has an advantage in Chinese character rhetoric. Well aware of this advantage, he tries to make full use of it in poetry translation. Making flexible use of classical Chinese also belongs to the rhetoric of modern Chinese character. Yu suggests that modern writers should learn to use classical Chinese and four-character phrases in their writings. His view about modern Chinese character rhetoric also represents his new horizon of Chinese rhetorical art in poetry.By analyzing a number of examples we point out that Yu Guangzhong translates phonological rhetorical devices in English poetry in the way of free translation or rhetorical adaptation. In most cases, rhetorical devices in Chinese poetry and English poetry are well-matched, such as rhetorical images. When translating such well-matched rhetorical devices in English poetry, Yu generally adopts the method of literal translation with a little polish. And when translating antidissertation in English poetry, he usually applies the more symmetrical Chinese antidissertation. In some of Yu’s translated poems, pictographic Chinese characters are utilized to produce a special rhetorical effect. The translation method employed there is rhetorical addition. We also point out that the most remarkable way to take advantage of Chinese character rhetoric in Yu Guangzhong’s translation poetry is to make flexible use of classical Chinese and four-character phrases. Usually, Yu uses classical Chinese in the vernacular context to make the translated poems more refined. If the original is marked by classic elegance, he should translate it mainly in classical Chinese. And sometimes he utilizes four-character phrases or idioms to vary the rhythm of his translated poems. In short, rhetorical devices employed in his translation are highly effective.Chapter Seven, as a conclusion, summarizes the major findings of this dissertation, which include the following:First, our study sums up Yu guangzhong’s English poetry translation artistry, which fills a gap in the studies on his literary works and translation works.Second, Yu Guangzhong’s translation skills and strategy discussed in our study, especially his method of translating English rhythmical verse, are good examples to be followed by other poetry translators.Third, we analyze Yu Guangzhong’s English poetry translation artistry from the perspective of hermeneutics, which may promote the study of "poetry translation hermeneutics" and even the whole poetry translation study.Fourth, Yu Guangzhong’s English poetry translation artistry revealed in our study proves that, poetry translation can promote the art of modern Chinese poetry if the translator has sufficient competence in both Chinese and English poetries, a lofty translation goal, and high artistic abilities in coordination and expression.更多还原